Russell Brand - everyone knew

[Mooshamoo]

I was watching the comedian Katherine Ryan say to Louis theroux that a British comedian is a sexual perpetrator. It is now believed that she was talking about Russell brand. She said on the video "when it eventually comes out about these type of people, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby, this unmentionable British personality, it turns out that everyone knew. Everyone knew. ".

I was wondering did anyone on here on mumsnet know anything about Russell brand? A lot of us lived in London when her was living there. And many women on here would have been a similar age to Russell brand . I lived in London for a year and I saw Russell brand out on a night out once. That was the extent of it. I was wondering did anyone on here have any experience with him, or know about a friend/acquaintance that had any experiences with him.

What was the second book about @Lifeomars ? What made you feel uneasy? I don't want to look the book up.

It's brilliant that this is coming out in the open and we are as a society getting dialogue around this damaging behaviour/ The litigious part is also interesting to me. Most regular people who have dealings with the law in any capacity find it a kind of depressing process, unjust and almost to the idea of being pointless and something to be avoided if you can. So someone that courts it is pretty suspect?

Nothing was done about Saville because he knew where he bodies were buried and would have taken accomplices down with him. That’s why they waited until he was dead before it all came out. He used to pal around with MPs and Royals. It would have been a massive scandal for the establishment.

I’m sorry to keep on, but this is just not correct and what the PP posted is absolutely relevant. I don’t know in what context you have experience of this, but this is child abuse. I am a Designated Safeguarding Lead working with children in this age group. It’s what I deal with day in, day out. It would still be child abuse even if they were the same age (child on child abuse). Raping a person under the age of 18 is child abuse. This isn’t a legal grey area.

They have also taken responsibility for verifying the texts, if they are mistaken about any of it then Brand would have a strong case for defamation.

They have verified the texts.

I think you are confusing an illustration in a newspaper with a text message.

The BBC was bringing him school girls? In what way

On the condom thing, taking a condom off without your partner’s knowledge is rape.

The prosecution needs to present evidence that can prove ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ he did it.

That doesn’t mean zero doubt.

No-one piece of evidence needs to be the smoking gun. Given that Nadia visited a rape crisis centre, attended counselling and has contemporaneous texts builds a very strong argument that her version of events is reliable.

However, judging by some of these threads, some people would only return a guilty verdict if the rape happened in front of a live studio audience and the victim was a virgin and a lesbian.

“Although sexual activity in itself is no longer an offence over the age of 16, young people under the age of 18 are still offered protection under the Children Act 1989/2004.
Consideration still needs to be given to issues of sexual exploitation and abuse of power.”

The Met website states that it refers to sexual abuse.

Its news just now reported that BBC cars were used to ferry school girls to his house - Alice.

<Deep breaths>

If RB were charged for Alice’s accusations (I hate to say it but it’s unlikely as his expensive legal team would argue that going to the press first shows a bias if it went to trial) he would not be charged for child sex offences.

I couldn't agree with your comment more. I have said to my husband for years that Russell Brand makes my skin crawl and I would feel really uncomfortable in his company. But absolutely shouldn't be dragged through the mud this way, it should be done through the proper channels. It just seems totally unfair. Maybe he is innocent, and maybe he is guilty, but trial by media is just not right in my eyes...

What infuriates me about these discussions is that everyone is conflating the sleazy promiscuous, 'would fuck anything' behaviours which everyone in the country knew about, with assault and rape, whihc everyone couldn't have known about.

Yes EVERYONE knew he was would sleaze over any women in the room in the hope of having sex with her, and that he'd use his fame and power to get women to go along with grubby sexual encounters that many probably didn't feel great about later when he never spoke to them again.

So I don't know why these types of stories are being shared as shocking? Everyone knew, because it's in his books apart from anything, he was doing it openly on the telly, he talks about it, so why is anyone shocked.

What anyone with a brain can then predict is that vast number of sleazy casual sexual encounters inevitably would have resulted in many women feeling they'd been used, and emotionally and physically abused. and probaly many of those encounters would be grim reading. But not suprising.

What everyone didn't know was that he was definitely a rapist, and no one knows this for definite now, unless you are a women he raped, or you have evidence that a rape took place. If he has raped anyone, let alone multiple women, the only way for justice to be carried out is to provide the evidence to the police. Yes it's a horribly flawed systen for women but what other way do we have?

If it turns out he is guilty of rape he should go to prison for a very long time. But in order to see this clearly we need to seperate the shitty nasty legal behaviour everone knew about from the actual illegal incidents far fewer could have known about.

If he's guilty he needs conviction. But before then we need to make sure it's not another media trial eg Joanna Yeates and poor Christopher Jefferies unfairly treated.

The car sometimes collecting 16yo Alice to take her to RB was a BBC car.

They’re protected as children, but that’s not to say RB would be charged with child sex offences

You can’t do anything with “everyone knew”. Even if you knew five women who told you they had been assaulted by him, the police wouldn’t take any action if you reported it. His employer wouldn’t. You need to have first hand experience or evidence, not hearsay. And anyone who doesn’t understand why the women directly involved didn’t report it hasn’t been paying attention.

I do blame the BBC and Channel 4, though. They could and should have investigated properly, and this failure has been repeated too many times now to be excused.

The BBC was bringing him school girls? In what way

'Alice' was talking about it on Woman's Hour this morning

His dad said 'Is this seriously the most important thing happening in this world? Immigrants? Cost of living? 10s of thousands killed in Ukraine? Who is prioritising at BBC News. Who is really driving this vendetta?'.

The cynical attempt to use immigrants to pander to the right wing makes him even more of a cunt then he is.

He raped a 16 year old, and also abused her in other ways during the course of a 'relationship'.

A 16 year old is a child.

It's not complicated. Just because there's no suggestion of paedophilia that doesn't mean he didn't abuse a child.

There's been an allegation of rape and Mon consensusal oral sex amongst other stuff, but you think that's a non-event? Do you think the 16 yo kid deserved it?

And she's due to give birth to their third shortly

Yes, That’s already been discussed. But legally and morally it’s still child abuse.

Fewer and fewer rapes and sexual assaults are reported to the police so yes, trial by media it is when our police and judicial system are so inadequate and untrustworthy.

Thats correct but my limited understanding is that she didnt really consent, therefore its rape/sexual assault. I think thats whats getting muddled here, my understanding is that it wasnt consensual

If it was consensual then its not likely to be an offence.

We find it really hard, virtually impossible to progress police investigations into grooming, I dont think we have had one yet.

If 16 years old are children,
and they can consent to sex,
then
Some children can consent to sex, would be true statement?